Friendo

Friday 6th August 2010 | 11:53 AM

Good on ya Jake... though I see all of this even more simply than that. I don't have the need for such complicated explanations.

1&2) There had to be something there, either Space or Matter, one or the other. The reality is there is mostly nothing. Space is 99.9% empty.

3&4) "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." Its all got to be arranged somehow. Even if it were all random, that would be a pattern.

5) "Mass (matter) and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing."

6-10) This is the easy one: Put a monkey at a typewriter long enough, sooner or later he's bound to type a word. And that's how life started...You got infinite time, you got life.

And I swear to all that is meaningful to me, these are good enough for me. Makes allot more sense than immaculate conception, and the rapture.

Hmmmm...I wonder if there is anyone lurking who won't like this?

f~

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 6th August 2010 | 12:52 PM

Hey, F-Man,

With 1&2, you're close, but 'empty space' has recently (last 10 years) been found to be filled with 'Dark Energy', and then there is also the 'Dark Matter' which envellops the Galaxy clusters and superclusters.

Your explanation for 6-10 wonderfully poetic, and extremely apt.

And to answer your question, yes, frequently.

Gina

Friday 6th August 2010 | 01:08 PM

Not that I would ever suggest that anyone believe that the universe was created in six literal days, however, please let the record reflect that you, yourself, did not answer these questions, Jake. You posted some links to other sites that you agree with in an attempt to answer the questions. But the record must reflect you, yourself, have not answered the questions.

Furthermore, the "Answer" to no. 2 is no answer at all. In that article the words "creation" and "created" were used no less than 4 times in 5 short paragraphs, which I find rather hilarious.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 6th August 2010 | 02:24 PM

Most people would call what I did, providing arguments with source documents. Unfortunately, I can't provide links to entire books or to text books, and aside from not being able to post them, you aren't really in a position to comprehend them (and this is not an insult, I find myself in much the same position - indeed the reason I've gone back to university).

As we all know, when you go to wikipedia or any such synoposis style material page, you are accessing the reduced arguments rather than the papers or texts themselves. Those pages are written so that the lay-person can understand them, but much is lost in translation - something that I'm sure you can understand.

Of course, I am not an astrophysicist or cosmologist, and am limited by my personal ability to articulate what others have discovered and what I have studed. Rest assured Gina, there are many who trump both you and I in intellect and ability to examine and report on the universe.

While, as you say, these are not my answers, that is because, as I said, I am not a physicist, it does demonstrate that far more plausable explanations for our existence than "god did it" have been uncovered and await your feeble mind, as they did mine.

Don't come in here and discredit what you have not bothered to research. There is far more available to you out there than what I have provided here, I made an effort to look, you just pointed and laughed.

Marvin the Martian

Friday 6th August 2010 | 02:26 PM

...in response to this comment by Gina. He also used a lot of commas, the word 'the' and there seems to be a great deal of question marks. Makes the entire article a little suspect don't you think?

gilly

Friday 6th August 2010 | 07:19 PM

So far no answer on question 1 No evidence

and no answer on question 1 negates question 2 answer No evidence

3. The natural laws are observed laws, they are the observable constants in our universe and without them, and we would not exist to ponder them. An infinite number of universes "MAY" have existed before this one or even parallel to this one, and they "MAY" indeed have different laws which prevented or supported their rise. This one in infinity (YOU FORGOT TO ADD "MAY" HERE) occurred, and has observed constants, but what of those which inevitably failed? Did their god not care or was it just natural?
May be right Jake May be
So far not looking to clever Jake No evidence

4 So the big bang has now become fact and you base your answers on this Big Bang even though you admit it may not be fact
My heads not spinning just yet No evidence

5 remember this
You posted it
"1. Depends on which theory you subscribe to. Super String is most interesting and I'll let you explore it. Short answer, the Big Bang. While we know that the Big Bang occurred (through various means but the most observed is through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CBM) and there are plenty of theories on how, none is set. It's science, baby, and we're just in our infancy!"
Its not set, You said that yet its your foundation and you are building on what is not set
I bet you never studied engineering Jake No evidence

6 GREAT THEORIES So dust and water or aliens. My head is still not spinning and I am suprised No evidence


7 Hmmmm No Jake I know the pat answers but my question is unanswered What caused the Amino acids to pair up and the chains to form Dawkins Pixies
No evidence

8 because it happened Sounds like kindy kids answer Is that your best No evidence

9 I subscribe to God and you worship dawkins
Dawkins says so......... Bible says so............ You know where this is going.........No evidence

10 I will concede you got this right Mutations cause damage not evolution, now tell me why some scientists cant agree with you


So of the ten questions nine of your answers are based on faith with no evidence
Now Religious boy want some more

gilly

Friday 6th August 2010 | 07:51 PM

Jake how about a scientifically based explanation on dark matter with scientific evidence and its significance in the universe
or maybe answer those 10 questions again using scientific evidence and dropping the "May be's" and "It happens"

Hey friendo I have read some of your typings and seen no proof of intelligence from you? Chortle chortle

Ellis

Friday 6th August 2010 | 08:55 PM

If we can't know for sure whether the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow, can they really be called laws?

Plus it's not heat death that's the current fashionable prediction for the future of the universe, more like an expansion into nothingness, when everything gets so far away from everything else that light can't travel from one thing to another, so everything will effectively become nothing. From nothing (before the big bang) to nothing . . . 0=0. Ashes to ashes dust to dust.

Theoretical physicist Laurence Krauss:

gilly

Friday 6th August 2010 | 09:23 PM

Entropy=0=0. Ashes to ashes dust to dust= Why evolution is stupid.

The big bang; Nothing = something. Science for the retarded

The worlds newest religion. Belief in nothing that is something without evidence= Athiesm, with Dawkins as the hi Priest. Dawkins Books as the new Bibles
The LAW

Dark matter, Pop culture of science The fashion based on nil evidence

Gina

Friday 6th August 2010 | 10:06 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. I do rest assured, but you seem to have a problem with that. Hence your articles.

gilly

Saturday 7th August 2010 | 07:14 PM

come on Jake back up your tripe with.......
#EVIDENCE# otherwise its all faith and a new world religion

somebody else step up and support Dawkins alter boy
Poor Jakes on his own and looking silly

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 8th August 2010 | 02:44 PM

...in response to this comment by gilly. I gladly gave the evidence.

Claiming that something is refuted does not make it so.

gilly

Sunday 8th August 2010 | 04:09 PM

If you have so much evidence why provide so many "Mays" and theorys

Friendo

Sunday 8th August 2010 | 05:31 PM

Hey Jake...You are on your own-mostly-but I don't think you look silly. It takes guts to go against the grain of billions who believe 2000 year old (and older) teachings about universal truths, which have been largely outdated.

It's interesting, that most/many/some of the believers have been able to let go of the Flat Earth, the promise that god will never make it rain so hard again being the purpose of the rainbow. Also, millions have given up many biblical laws that would make their lives more difficult.

For instance: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And
in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he
saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commiteth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
-- Mark 10:2-12

and

If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.?
-- 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

So whats the deal? Is it just not convenient to follow gods law when it comes to Divorce? And what about the "fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator" thing. This not only sounds like allot
of "Christians" and Clergy, but the multitude have at the very least a few drunks, addicts, and idolitors for friends. Oh my god, I even know some christians that have Gay kids. How do they reconcile these discrepancies?

It's kind of like this: The christian clergy and their followers use what suits them to keep control over as many as they can. What used to be fact, unquestioned law, is now used only
for control of masses of people, collecting money, and attaining undeserved respect. Also, millions who are unhappy with their lives, unable to come to grips with the fact that all you get is a few short years here on earth, and that's the only life you ever get...they cling on the the insane idea that there is another life after after this one. It's kind of like insisting that the
Moon has an invisible atmosphere, and after Armageddon, that's where we will be living. People who believe in the rapture convienetnly disbelieve many things we know to be true, so they can sleep at night without fear of death. They convienetnly believe they can get a divorce. They convienetnly believe they can swear on the Bible. They convienetnly believe that they can have alcoholics, idol worshipers, people who have committed dishonest acts as friends. Truly, most American Christians and probably Middle Eastern Muslim(and those here as well) use church going as an insurance policy against going to a nonexistent hell.

I'm sure Gilly(who often comments on this blog), is sure she has her place in heaven reserved and waiting.

I mean it's one thing to believe that the Universe is endless and that life evolved from a typewriter, but quite another to believe that an invisible omnipresent being has a place waiting for us after this life, that you also cant see. It also seems the very height of ignorance and arrogance to believe that while millions of of people starve, die of disease, suffer, and
lead sad and useless lives, that our christian god listens to and sometimes answers our prayers.
To even think that he even gives us guidance is absurd. I have so many friends who are convinced that god plays a part in their lives.Why would he? Why would he play a part in our lives, and not do anything for so many who are so needy. I know somebody will have some will have what I will consider a stupid answer for this. These Christians are so misguided, and misled by their clergy...I just don't get it.

When someone sees a rainbow, do they say, "I am seeing a physical reaction, that can be produced in laboratories with the right conditions, using light, and the qualities of reflection and refraction" or do they say, "I am seeing the omen from god, that the world will not be flooded."? When someone sees fire, do they say, "I am seeing the gift of Prometheus," or do they say, "I am seeing the vibration of atoms."?

Religion is ignorance: It makes spirits to explain phenomenon and then burns those who disagree with the spirits -- the ghosts, the magic, the supernatural, the gods, the daemons, the sucubi, the incubi, the serpents, the devils. Men of science will not have this crutch of superstition and dogma.

Interestingly, some of the ignorance is shed, as we move through time, superstition and Ju-Ju are replaced by reason, logic and fact. It really cracks me up how the believers still keep holding onto the flimsy beliefs that can't be proven (and don't even make sense). With all the magic that has been dispelled over the centuries, they just cant let go of any of it, until the writing is so neon fluorescent on the wall, that they will lose more ground by clinging to it.

Back in the early 1600's the Aristotelian view of the Solar System had been the prevailing scientific understanding for over 1,000 years, the Catholic Church had accepted it as truth. Galileo was accused of Heresy, for proposing and espousing that the Earth and known Planets revolved around the Sun. The Catholic church was of the opinion that the telescopic discoveries that Galileo made were valid, but the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture. Galileo was declared a Heretic, but was saved from corporal punishment with help from friends in high places, and some technicalities. The Church however for many years still held the Geocentric Solar System notion. In 1758 (over 100 years after Galileo's posits, the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating Heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books. Why? Even though they had god's divine inspiration, they figured, when the train is coming your way, you'd better get off the tracks. god and his buddies almost burned the God fearing Galileo for making accurate observations, and trying to answer questions of the ages.

One last thing that just kills me: When you talk about religious wars, and the inquisition, and other stupid things the church does to embarrass itself, our "devout" christians are so quick to point that this has nothing to do with god. It's due to the involvement of man. but arn't they doing the work of god here on earth?

Anyway...I send this comment out on a wing and a prayer...

f~

gilly

Sunday 8th August 2010 | 07:44 PM

Thanks for those concise and clear answer to those questions Friendo

Sorry
What
Oh you were just ranting


Lets see Stalin Hitler Pol Pot Mao etc the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
Versus the Catholic Churches

The religion of athiesm The real cause of the worlds worst wars and death tolls. Lets talk about the lives lost to athiest supported abortion

Friendo

Sunday 8th August 2010 | 11:30 PM

What questions? Chortle chortle. You never answer any of mine directly. Plus, your punctuation and capitalization is so bad, I'm not even sure when your asking a question. I keep getting your "questions" confused with your snide and sardonic written eructations.

You claim that we use faith to believe in scientific principals and Atheism. "#EVIDENCE# otherwise its all faith" (I'm not sure what those #'s mean, is that some sort cryptic encoding combined with all those caps, no periods, and fragmented sentences.) I'll grant you there is a certain amount of faith required to be a lay believer in scientific principal. But at least I don't have to have faith in absurd and highly questionable fundamentals. At least widely believed scientific explanations of the workings of this Universe fit in with the way things are. Not only that, scientific building blocks of knowledge are predisposed to, and ready to be changed at any time due to a more complete understand of known facts. Your religion does not allow you to adapt your thinking to the way things really are, as you are sill carrying a mental candle that was lit over 2000 years ago. How does it go?

One thing you seem to have not understood Gilly: I did not take the church, its religion, and god, because I remained open to the possibility as a youth. I am a pretty observant person, and believe me, if something that makes a shred of sense comes by that lends itself to making sense out of this invisible god in an invisible heaven, with a son of virgin birth, who was killed and resurrected, and cleared our way for a life ever after...Well give me some evidence of but one of those issues, and I'll hop on board. I could be converted, but not with the Shroud of Truin, and not with "it's written in god's word, the bible", and not with the "Just look around you at our beautiful world, how could there not be a god?" Tell me something that will engage me with the smell of reality, and I promise to take a good, long look. Tell me something that makes sense.

Well, Gilly, you have drawn me in to this one. I gave you at first a flippant, and then an honest and heart felt response.

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, indeed, these are my equivalent of High Preists, though they deserve no special deference, other than they have their thoughts well arranged, are well read, knowledgeable, and...oh, whats the use...

Please give me one shred of evidence that something out there might be able to save us from ourselves, and I will listen. I'm not saying that you have to have a thesis with footnotes, just one thing that will get me to take a look. Please no hyperlinks, no videos, no quotes other from your holy book, just your words. I will listen sincerely to what ever you provide.

And by the way...at least what I wrote just above your last comment, with the only exception being the "Religion is ignorance" quote, the post was all mine, straight from me. My words.

One last thing...are you equating Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao with the Catholic Church, who, did support the Nazi Party during WWII?

Oh crap, I stumbled accross one more tidbit: I suggest that you quit using Hitler as scapegoat for the murdering church. It is quite well documented that Hitler was raised as, and was a "devout" Roman Catholic. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”. Historical record shows that Hitler believed in God and was convinced he was carrying out God's will.

Hitler was raised in a Catholic family. He went to Catholic schools and served as an altar boy in the Catholic Church. Growing up in this environment, he surely learned something of the centuries of discrimination and persecution the Church had supported against Jews in Europe. Yes, he was doing the good work of god. Sounds like George W. Bush, who, as you remember, also took his marching orders directly from god.

Here is what bush is known to have said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."³

Gilly, I'm curious-though I know I will not get an answer: Did you vote for Bush? Do you support Sarah Palin? Do you support the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan? How does god feel about those wars? Did god truly support our president?

Neither was Pol Pot an Atheist. Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist...But I'm sure you will find fault in Buddhism, as they do not believe in the one true god. You really need to work on some of your arguments. If I can find holes, I suggest you do a bit more research, as you did so aptly put it: "I have read some of your typings and seen no proof of intelligence from you?" Woh...A question mark...but wait, is that the proper use of a question mark?

And while I'm thinking about it: Are you saying that only Atheists have abortions? I'd be willing to bet big money (and I'm not a betting man) that the majority of women who have had abortions are Catholic. Hang on, let me Google this.....

"Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic, 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics."¹

Interesting...According to this, "40% of all women in the US are either Evangelical Christians, or Catholics. Furthermore, 43% of women getting an abortion in the United States identify as Protestant & 27% Catholic."² That's a total of 70%... Guess that blows a hole in another argument of yours as well. Seriously, you ought start doing some fact checking..Assuming you want to get good at this Pro God thing.

Sources for abortion statistics
¹-http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
²-http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/stats_on_abortion.htm
³-http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

Typing for life, here in the Heartland,

f~

Tyler V.

Monday 9th August 2010 | 05:50 AM

Just wondering, have any of your read Antony Flew's "There Is A God" yet? Was wondering what all the naturalists would respond to - specifically in his Appendix A response to the new atheist movement of men like Dawkins and Dennet. (If you dont have it, I think the appendix is available as the readable pages on the Banes and Noble website). I found some of his comments to be quite timely and cogent and his illustration from the marble table to be very insightful.

Just curious.

Friendo

Monday 9th August 2010 | 06:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. Tyler, could you be just a bit more specific. It's not likely I will go browsing for Appendix A. And as Gilly will tell you, even if I did, I'm too stupid to understand.

Sorry, I just looked on Barnes and Noble, and I didn't see an Appendix A. I did read something about how it is said that Mr. Flew converted from Atheism. I'm sure this must be a big deal for you guys. Interestingly, it is alleged that when the Book you mention was published, Anthony Flew was 85 years old, and there is considerable controversy surrounding not only his mental state, but why the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind. It is thought by some that Flew did not finish the book himself, but that this was done by his co author, who was not quite as notorious, and is alleged to have an ulterior motive. So, right off the bat, and support of that this well informed Atheist might have swung toward the church is in question. I would ask: "timely and cogent" from who's point of view?

Anyway, good to see you around. Hope all is well with you and yours.

f~

gilly

Monday 9th August 2010 | 07:22 AM

All great answers Friendo Chortle chortle

Yes I know using Hitler is unfair but its fun to see reactions. Pol Pot, I didnt know yet Budhism is athiesm
Comparing Catholicism with Christianity is like comparing Hitler with athiesm . Its not true but the implications are entertaining

WAS HITLER AN ATHEIST OR A CHRISTIAN?

Both believers and atheists are still debating this question. Some Christians have erroneously asserted that Hitler was an atheist; some atheists have erroneously asserted that Hitler was a Christian. Both assertions are wrong. Hitler was neither -- but….

Hitler was born in a Catholic, Austrian family. In time Hitler rejected Catholicism and Christianity in large part because of the influence of a fanatical “atheist” by the name of Friedrick Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an influential German philosopher of the 1800’s who saw Christ and Christianity as an abhorrent expression of weakness. A true leader, in Nietzsche’s view, had to be a “Superman,” free from the shackles of religion and ready and willing to use cruelty to achieve power and control over the masses.

“Thus...Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."[i]
Hitler was so enamored with Nietzsche that he gave his fellow fascist dictator Mussolini a set of all of Nietzsche’s works during one of their meetings. Nietzsche’s works may have helped solidify Mussolini’s atheism and his cruelty.

Hitler’s other mentor was a Renaissance political writer by the name of Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s very influential work, The Prince, was Hitler’s bedtime reading[ii]. Machiavelli had no place for Christian morality and openly encouraged leaders to use deceit and cruelty to gain and to retain power. Machiavelli acknowledged a divinity, but in his teachings one cannot see any glimmer of support for the Christian God or for Christian principles.

Machiavelli argues that Christianity fosters the wrong civic virtues. The Christian learns humility, denial and contempt of the mundane things of this world. Christianity he says fosters submissiveness and indifference to one's duties and responsibilities as a citizen.[iii]
Thus the two greatest forces that shaped Hitler’s mind and that moulded his proud, arrogant and cruel spirit were both “anti-Christian.” Nietzsche, the major force that shaped Hitler’s unstoppable cruelty, was undeniably an atheist.

Did Hitler, therefore, believe in some kind of undefined Divinity? It appears that he did; but we must say so with some reservation, as he may have used references to God to ingratiate himself with the majority of Germans who professed to be Catholics or Lutherans. After all, Machiavelli instructs that, most of all, a successful leader must "appear" religious.[iv] Thus it is conceivable that Hitler may have put this principle into practice.

Therefore, though Hitler may have not been an atheist, one thing can be asserted with absolute certainty: Hitler had no place in his life and politics for the Christian God, as his beastly cruelty clearly manifested. It is relevant to mention that Hitler's evil actions were surpassed by the arch-atheist, Stalin.

__________________

I didnt vote Democrat but I will if I can next time

as for statistics saying women who have abortions are mostly Christian, well I am sure some are but I am sure many call themselves Christian but have no spiritual foundation
Statistics everyone knows statistics are a rock solid argument Duh

Give us a smile friendo and you will get your evidence and it will make no difference

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 9th August 2010 | 08:05 AM

...in response to this comment by gilly. Gilly, it's actually completely, totally and utterly irrelevant whether Hitler was a Christian, an Atheist, a garden gnome or a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what he and Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin all had in common, as with many other tyrants from hisory is a personal ideology which was detrimental to humanity.

Religion, all religion, is just another ideology, and don't kid yourself, your own Christian religion has been used countless times to commit vile attrocities. As was Islam, right up to Budihsm.

Lets be clear, I'm an atheist and I've never murdered, raped, tortured, or setup a dictatorship. I also subscribe to the fact of evolution by way of natural selection as the explanation for our origins (from the first organism onwards).

What scares you, Gilly, is that atheism is not identifiable, it has no beliefs, no structure, and no inherrant moral structure. It scares the shit out of you that people live their lives completely free of any ideologically based morals, yet the an inherrant morality exists.

How can one be moral without belief in god? How can one not murder and rape indiscriminately without belief and heaven in hell? How can one live a life of value without knowing god?

The answer is obvious, but I'll let you come to it.

Friendo

Monday 9th August 2010 | 08:22 AM

...in response to this comment Hate to tell you this Tyler, but Anthony Flew died on April 8th, 2010. My guess is that he and Carl Sagan are duking it out in hell as we as we speak. So much for that sequel, unless the same guy who wrote "There Is A God" is gonna' ghost write this one too. sorry Tyler, it's just too funny, I can't help myself.

I gotta tell ya' you're right on about the my attempt to discredit Flew. It just seems to me that turn about is fair play. To paraphrase a line from Dr. Strangelove: "Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country..."

I'll get back to you on this, I am fixing your mis-labeled comment. It will be in a different place, but will still be a response to my comment.
BRB

f~

Tyler V.

Monday 9th August 2010 | 08:24 AM

...in response to this comment by Friendo. Appendix A is the first appendix in the back of the book.

And there is no controversy about his converting to deism (he doesnt even call himself a theist but in fact is a deist). There is only atheists who would rather mock up some false controversy to escape the fact that a devout atheist converted due to the force of the arguments. In fact if you read the preface to the book he quite clearly addresses such ad hominem arguments. What is even more surprising is that this book is quite clear, cogent, and articulate - not something you would expect if he had become senile or something.

He even addresses those who say that he converted because he feared his impending death by stating that while he has abandoned his naturalistic worldview, he still does not believe in the afterlife, salvation, judgment, etc. but rather that a Prime Intelligence is a better explanation of the universe as we perceive it.

And the ghost writer thesis is just absurd. Flew has been interviewed several times since writing the book, has debated the resurrection of Jesus with Gary Habermas since then and is actually in the process of writing the sequel book.

The real question you should be asking is why so many naturalists and atheists feel the need to come up with these false accusations in an attempt to dismiss his book, rather than engage with the material. I'm not saying it makes what he says true, but it sure reveals something about their confidence in their ability to adeptly respond to his arguments. it's the old adage - "If you cant beat 'em... mock them and try to make them look stupid and maybe no one will see how persuasive the arguments actually are."

Friendo

Monday 9th August 2010 | 08:32 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. "How can one be moral without belief in god? How can one not murder and rape indiscriminately without belief and heaven in hell? How can one live a life of value without knowing god?" Wait a minute here now Jakester... Are you talking about a philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making? Are you saying that there is a life stance we humans can take that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives, without god? Hmmmmm...Let me ponder this.

f~

Henk V

Monday 9th August 2010 | 12:46 PM

Pity I missed the burden of proof thing again...

Friendo

Monday 9th August 2010 | 01:18 PM

...in response to this comment by Henk V. Henk...The proof is in the pudding. OR, in this case, the primordial soup.

However, I assure you, you didn't miss much.

f~

gilly

Monday 9th August 2010 | 07:52 PM

"Gilly, it's actually completely, totally and utterly irrelevant whether Hitler was a Christian, an Atheist, a garden gnome or a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what he and Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin all had in common, as with many other tyrants from hisory is a personal ideology which was detrimental to humanity. "

*Yes I agree yet you like to put anybody who calls themselves a Christian in to that very basket
No true Scotsman
Jesus the teacher and leader of all Christians and his words in the bible teach love and forgiveness, outside of those teachings is not based on true Christianity.
I dont expect you to understand though

"Religion, all religion, is just another ideology, and don't kid yourself, your own Christian religion has been used countless times to commit vile attrocities. As was Islam, right up to Budihsm. "'

*I dont kid myself you kid yourself Athiesm and evolution has blood on its hands. More I believe

"Lets be clear, I'm an atheist and I've never murdered, raped, tortured, or setup a dictatorship. I also subscribe to the fact of evolution by way of natural selection as the explanation for our origins (from the first organism onwards)."

*I am a Christian and you imply because of that I am a child rapist or at the very least somebody who denies it and more
I believe in creation and all men are created equals

"What scares you, Gilly, is that atheism is not identifiable, it has no beliefs, no structure, and no inherrant moral structure. It scares the shit out of you that people live their lives completely free of any ideologically based morals, yet the an inherrant morality exists".

* Scares me? I can identify all athiests dont believe in any Gods without a drop of evidence
Your moral structure is based on self and that is concerning ala Pol Pot Mao Stalin and if that doesnt bother you you lie The so called inherent morality is a choice based on no value and in cases of , well it can all go pear shaped




"How can one be moral without belief in god? How can one not murder and rape indiscriminately without belief and heaven in hell? How can one live a life of value without knowing god?"

* I know plenty of non Christians more moral than I . That was never an issue


"The answer is obvious, but I'll let you come to it."

The answer is everybody is different and athiesm has no standard
Do as thou wilt







Now go answer the questions scientifically

Henk V

Monday 9th August 2010 | 08:42 PM

easy Goldilocks... atheism has a standard, its poor... every atheist believes in something.


They don't believe in religious figure like jesus or mohammad , but frankly they think rubbish like buddhism is ok.. (lets face it, that fraud the dalai llama gets a lot of support from new atheists).

Its why I am not an atheist.

Goldilocks and Baby bear, whilst you keep on hammering them on things they believe, you are winning. But FCS, don't do it on terminology that you believe... it makes you look like a prize dick.

Ps... those who believe in talking toilets, angelic plants and hair dresser therapy like mama bear does... deserves a good friday mention..



You know, I think I am liking to like goldilocks... I am waiting for him to develop a point of view one day...

Henk V

Monday 9th August 2010 | 09:02 PM

OK..OK


Jake, never ever pretend you are a scientist.

I have read your article in its totality and I can understand why you would divide a room on Kent Hovinds ridiculous assertions. You are not in a position to deny or confirm Hovinds very "lie based" arguments.


Had you attacked him on his mythology (as i smash baby bear) or his else where "mythological morality" I would have been satisfied.


Frankly Hovinds approach is genesis. nothing but early genesis and it fails on an evidential view point. What he says about the origins of the universe is genesis based, he lies by adding his own viewpoint to it... that lane fellah does the same.


The evidence is, science has extrapolated back on particle physics and further to an energetically based model for what we would call non matter. At the instant of the universe.


Two things remain to be resolved;

A) Why
B) Why does it appear that the universe was made for the observer.


The answers are for the religious;

A) Duh
B) the spirulanears testicle ovarian creep did it.

and for science

B) When is observation ridiculous?


Only for the last question can we give an answer... Guys, in stellar terms.....Its not that long


guys, find a calculator today and smash it!

Henk V

Monday 9th August 2010 | 09:06 PM

Can I just ask why we should even argue over the one hypothesis from a man who now showers with men?



Frankly, christians would eschew him and atheists eschew him... he is about as entertaining as jim carey and , lets face it, jim carey has a body count, ken hovind keeps folk in trailer parks.


kent is a good guy..

gilly

Monday 9th August 2010 | 10:00 PM

Can we have an interpreter here please


I am sure its very entertaining to type Hanksta and I am sure I am a little shorter than you imagine
I know lets pretend I dont speak American

Why argue over hypothesis??
They are questions...........duh............ Is Hank short for Homer?

Gong

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 07:43 AM

space is not empty. the uncertainty principle states that there will be particles pairs (matter and anti-matter) appearing and canceling each other all the time. this has been proven by the Casimir experiment. The big bang happened due to a similar occurrence followed by inflation.

according to string theory, and the resulting M-theory, big bangs are happening all the time and inflating new universes.

life is basically the result of emergence. simple chemical reactions evolve to become complex as a whole. if life were designed or created by a designer, that designer incorporated evolution into the algorithm, which is why we are mortal. Immortal life will not improve itself. so evolution is a fact of life, whether there is a God or not. until now, intrinsic evolution (or improvement/adaptability) could only happen naturally. This is a better answer to question 9, because intrinsic evolution can only happen via reproduction and death. extrinsic evolution will be the next step, where technology improves life (actually this is already happening).

gilly, sorry but if theoretical physics is too hard for you to understand, then i feel pity for you. or perhaps you just didn't make the effort to try and get the best understanding of your universe. read a book, it will open your eyes, and it will satisfy you for a while in the knowledge you gain.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 11:00 AM

...in response to this comment by Henk V. Henk, I agree.

Friendo

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 11:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Henk V. Hey...What about my typewriter? I've got more life to get going.

f~

gilly

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 01:16 PM

"according to string theory, and the resulting M-theory, big bangs are happening all the time and inflating new universes. "
*chortle chortle*

I know thats you Jake with another theory based on no evidence
Science for the simple. If you have no evidence make the new theory even more ludicrous to confuse everyone in to acceptance

Tyler V

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 01:24 PM

Just wondering.... (even though no one answered my last question, I'll still ask a new one) why is it that atheists (usually) will resort to highly speculative and hotly debated, and even equally rejected as they are accepted (if not more so) theories such as string theory, M theory, memes, etc. as if they are some definitively proven new discovery?

Henk V

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 03:08 PM

ok, seeing I am the only nut job capable of bringing you lorises down from the trees.

Keny Hovind only asks evolutionists... whu, Because Kent never asks scientists. If you have ever noticed that when this crminal asks scientists a question, he has egg all over his face.

Now I am profoundly disturbed by folk who refer to themselves as evolutionists (someone who believes in evolution) enterering any sort of debate at all. Its like religious folk basing their science on what they believe.

And yes, every time I see that poll, "do you believe in evolution?", I wrute in "Believe?"... its like do I believe in sewage?

Now Jake fell into the trap that the fraud always asks (yes he spent time with tattooed Shirley for fraud). How can Hovind even ask about cosmological questions when he is ignorant of all cosmological argument? In that he is identical to that secondary fraud "Lane" that baby bear quotes verbatim.


Now we know that Hovind and Lane have a penchant for belief. We also know that neither understands science. We also know that there are religious scientists who will bend out of field statements to suit their own (i.e, Francis Collins).

Frankly, plainly, if you want to argue chemistry, you dont challenge people who believe in chemistry or those who don't (baby bear, mama bear and goldilocks are such achemistics).

If you want to challenge folk who understand evolution.. challenge those scientists. Lane and Hovind continually fall flat on their face...on record. why, because they have to appeal to logical fallacies.

If you really want to challenge life origins scientists, challenge them. They have many mechanisms now that can supply the origins of many live potentials.

If you want to challenge math, well baby, they are so perverse, you are welcome.



Now lets drag this down for momma bear, baby bear and goldilocks. Why did Papa bear desert you all? because, you might be moderately religiously literate, but none of you are scientifically or real world literate.



Every day, i wake up disappointed with myself. But then I wake up. Sadly, i cant say the same for the denizens of bear forest.


You know, i really wish there had have been a way to describe feed forward functions, differential calculus and time domain transforms to Marvin. After that I would have had the pleasure of voting him in as a national treasurer. Why? Because Marvin does hit the nail on the head, there should be a youth saving and support program. The only difference between he and me? Well he and Jake understand that one.

Jake, Marvin, Mikey and Papa are now my front bench...



forest denizens, you an join the sex party... its the only belief based party that has credibility.


Friendo and Joe? we would make the Jake party honest. Give him a wax job and a red wig. I think the term for us three is "apparatchiks" . Jake says he has better tits than me.... I will supply a mold for election 2012

Henk V

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 03:23 PM

Well Baby bear, you hit the nail on the head... atheists tend to believe in things. Its about the only argument that you possess. The allied problem is, you are gullible Ju-Ju, you believe in anything... like a non existent god who created a universe that doesn't exist.

String theory, whilst wonderful and connective hasn't really made the advances. Why, because, the math supports it. Only the math supports it.


When the predictions of string theory are confirmed, then and only then can hard science push it further. Lets face it, strings seem odd to all (look, try whacking in unmitigated gamma, beta and bessel functions in a pc... these guys rock for their sheer cheek in mathematical eloquence from 1969).

Lets face it, when someone asks you, why do we have space, when the solved question "what is the mass of space" has been... awarded a Nobel quite a while ago, you realise, the fraud and the conservatives mouthpiece have been off their rocker from before their careers even started.

Henk V

Tuesday 10th August 2010 | 03:54 PM

I hope I am not repeating myself here... Goldilocks made a claim about string theory.


Red hot mathematicians are making a claim world wide. The claim is that provided the correct conditions exist, universes can seed within themselves.


These are not string theory predictions alone. The mathematics lends itself to conditional situations based on known universal forces.

Of course making a prediction based on something known and making a life science based on mutual masturbation are two totally different things.


So lets get to the real common-sense issues that the denizens of the forest allude to.

The scientific Kent Hovind now requests;

1) why did time create god?
2) If god was inevitable, why was god created before man?

These are both critical questions of the genesis myth. If you can deny the Apsu/Tiamat myth, then you have answered 1) and 2)...

PS... there will not be a bible quote handy for these.


Please do it to the Lime communities satisfaction... after you take a bet on information management (baby bear).


Can we move on to the ridiculous jesus of @25 CE?

Gong

Wednesday 11th August 2010 | 04:45 AM

people tend to forget or not realise that science and its theories are not rock solid. but they are still better and more sensible than religion in explaining and giving understanding of our universe.

Newton showed that Aristotle was wrong. Einstein showed that Newton was only approximating for slow speeds. Quantum physics showed that Einstein was not complete.

Science is always improving, as long as we want it to. Religion remains stagnant.

gilly

Wednesday 11th August 2010 | 07:03 AM

No Jake as those 10 questions show clearly the pseudo science of evolution has stagnated
It even now looks dead

What people tend to forget is that theorys are often overturned over time and that you cant build theorys on other theorys in case the original theory is wrong
Evolution has no foundation


How does science improve THATS SILLY
Science doesnt improve only mans understanding of it improves
and then to justify funding and jobs
The scientists lie
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Tyler V

Thursday 12th August 2010 | 02:37 PM

John Lennox's book God's Undertaker? would be helpful for most of you. Or Hart's book Atheist Delusions. Check them out.

Henk V

Thursday 12th August 2010 | 04:13 PM

Damn it would be good to have an opinion of my own... but I just love to refer someone to a book written by a person with an axe to grind


The most useless the axe, the more i show it off

R>O>T

Saturday 14th August 2010 | 10:52 PM

Repeatable Observable Testable

I will go away now

Tyler V

Thursday 19th August 2010 | 07:09 AM

Henk,

yeah, cause Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris et. al, dont have axes to grind right?

oh, and saying a person "has an axe to grind", whether they do or not, has nothing to do with whether or not what they say is true or not.

Pointing that out just shows that you are more of a fundamentalist who refuses to read the best proponents of the other view but would rather just mock and ignore them.

gilly

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 07:50 AM

You ever going to answer these questions properly Jake or is that drivel your best

You should consider politics with those answers Jake. To even suggest you answered them is a farce.
Come on Jake lets not play games
Thats one big FAIL

Henk V

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 11:27 AM

I haven't read any of the books by Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens.

I will maintain that religion is a personal thing and should not be brainwashed into children. Religion, in that regard, is artificial. All religion is artificial. Religions claims are spurious and ridiculous.

I do marvel at the 50 years of research that Dennett has done. He, being the greater of the three orators does not inflame antitheism from folk, he takes one from point to point in the real world.

You repeatedly assume that I am an atheist. Atheists have only removed one (albeit weighty) delusion from their baggage. As Jake will attest, I bash heads daily on other beliefs as well.


When someone announces he/she is an atheist and then expounds the virtues of alternative medicine, organic food culture or anti vaccination I realise that this person is still very religious. They just don't worship some fictitious character nailed to a tree in @25 CE they still worship the god of porcine ignorance (no change Will Robinson).

Whilst Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett are astounding orators, I would like Hitchens to stay away from science and stick with History, I'd like Dawkins to stay away from History and stick with science and, I'd like Dennett to run a national program on Philosophy. Massimo Pigliucci is doing a damn fine job of combining the three and only irritating the fastly diminishing number of mindless morons.

OK Ju-Ju.. back on yer head.

Disclaimer;
All of this post has been influenced by the anti-William Lane Craig particle (A-WLCP)

Henk V

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 01:33 PM

Being an artesan of the quaint disposition called "naturalism" (which up until now meant lying around sans apparel in Croatia), I do object to folk who aren't scientists writing about sciences and not quite getting up to date information.

Kent Hovind's arguments can be discounted by a school child that has been trained to sift through relevant information. Not that that sort of thing has been encouraged in the US since Clinton and Oz since Howard.

In this I note Goldilock's continual bleating about non existent states. I would note that not a single scientific theory that shows a real and universally accepted position has ever come from religion. Not a single one!

So for Goldilocks, Baby bear and Mama Bear (all of which have been tragically deserted by a smarter, faster, Papa Bear) could you please list just one universally accepted scientific theory, position and application?

Where was the theory published? Where was the universally adopted religious scientific position adopted? (Conference details please) and what application can it be applied to (List first years devices and patents).


You see my pixies, everything in science has its spin offs if they predict such possibilities. Even making equipment to observe these possibilities has these spin offs (CERN has paid itself many times over in benefit to the world).

Even experiments carried out to mimic life have their glory days (you wouldn't be doing it if you couldnt predict something useful happening and who knows, serendipity has its way of raising its beautiful head for a Nobel etc).

Darwin in his own inimical way predicted the outcomes of natural science for the next 150 years. He is the only human to have penned an entire theory of a science singlehandedly and in doing so predicted the existence of natural entities he could not see or detect. The theory of Biology is Darwin's theory.


So before the denizens of the forest pipe up and rant (not that you would undercut your own position again), what has Hovind and Craig got to offer the material world? Nix, Nada, Zilch.. Ken Ham, just a sun spent sandwich of continual self denial.


Get your pens out and hunt down for us these magnificent universally accepted religious scientific theories that undercut the theories pertaining to biology, quantum mechanics, cosmology, chemistry and material sciences.

Lets face it at the point you write...and god did it here, the R.L. community would like to see all working notes.

remember the old saying "absence of evidence is absence of evidence" . Its a very small tag to remember.

There is an adage "science is done by scientist's no matter what they believe in on sunday. Moralising is done by religious folk who don't understand science".

Back to the flat earthers...

Gilly

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 01:50 PM

"I will maintain that religion is a personal thing and should not be brainwashed into children. Religion, in that regard, is artificial. All religion is artificial. Religions claims are spurious and ridiculous. "

Wow Homer we agree
So why teach evolution in schools



Scientific Accuracies of the Bible
Many people doubt the Bible for various reasons. One of them is that the Bible is not accurate scientifically, but this just isn't so. The Bible is not a book about science, but when it does speak scientifically, it is accurate. In fact, it was far ahead of any other writing of its time. Please consider the following:

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
The Stars are Innumerable
"He took him outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be,'" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).
The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils," (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).
The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! ... When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, ... You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet ... the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas," (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
The Hydrologic Cycle
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
The Concept of Entropy
"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded," (Psalm 102:25-26, NIV).
The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness
The listing for this section is too large for this page, but the scriptural references are Leviticus 12-14.


Now Homer V
All this talk is urine in the wind, you find me all the scientific inacuracies in the bible

Henk V

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 02:37 PM

Goldilocks... so there isnt an all encompassing theory of religion that actually produced something useful? you know, like a shovel or a dishwasher.

And an allencompassing theory of god? or creation?

you havent answered the question and no, the beer hasnt started boiling for no reason... God is no reason. God the "no reason" beer boiler does not exist. Sadly, your mind state finds that an unreasonable statement.


If there was a useful scientific theory to come out of religion, it would have happened by now. People doing their PhD's have no time to waste on cutting and pasting dogma unless they are called stupid. Kent Hovind is called stupid.

Do you actually have any facts at all?

Henk V

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 04:10 PM

I was sort of waiting for baby bear to answer this, he is the one who trowels facebook for victims. Its about time he accepted his one uppance on Rusty. He is licking his wounds after finding out that information overwhelmingly comes and goes to non intelligent sources.

gilly

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 04:26 PM

Postulating and posing is not an answer.
Now Homer V
All this talk is urine in the wind, you find me all the scientific inacuracies in the bible

How about you stop dodging and weaving and make a point

Henk V

Monday 23rd August 2010 | 06:20 PM

Thats easy,,, the first one is the postulate that god created everything.

Now can you get on with your homework instead of evading questions as you always do. Name one religious theory that is universally accepted and shows supporting data. Give an application.

yes we know that god invented the stick, men told us...

Goldilocks, you'll have to stop asking questions directed at Jake when trying to answer mine.

Also, its rather irritating that you call me Homer when you are the one spreading folklore (by definition, religion is folklore)

gilly

Wednesday 25th August 2010 | 07:29 PM

"Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization... [came] to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2008


This is my all time favorite quote about evolution
Best I share

Grumpy

Thursday 9th September 2010 | 02:49 AM

I was a physics/chemistry teacher for over 30 years, in the Bible Belt no less. As a HS teacher there were years in which I also taught biology and evolution. Many of my fellow teachers were scared to tackle evolution due to threats(of tenure, lawsuits and, in one particular case, bodily harm)and wanting to avoid controversy in a small community(our HS had an average of ~200 students). I am well versed in the study of evolution, what it is and is not, what it says and does not say about life.

Gilly, you are an idiot!(there, I got it out, couldn't hold it any longer) Dawkins' speculation about advanced aliens seeding life on Earth(and presumably other suitable places)makes much more sense than the superstitious non-sense believed bt ancient, ignorant goatherds. The man knows of which he speaks. Although we do not know that life exists elsewhere(yet), we do know life can exist. No such knowledge is available for supernatural beings of any kind.

"So why teach evolution in schools"

Because evolution is a fact, that it has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth can only be denied by those ignorant(willfully or no)of the facts and those who know the facts but lie about them to promote an agenda(sort of like Republicans lie about Obama's religion).

"Evolution has no foundation"

That is a bald faced lie, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and can be shown true by your yearly flu shot.

"WAS HITLER AN ATHEIST OR A CHRISTIAN? "

Hitler was a devout Christian...

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

...straight from the horses arse.

"1. Where did the space for the universe come from? "

Space/time expanded from the Big Bang, the Universe IS space/time.

"2. Where did matter come from? "

From the energy of the Big Bang in the ratio of E=MC^2.

"3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?"

What we call laws are just descriptions of how the Universe behaves. We see how it behaves by observation, we formulate hypotheses that explain it, we test those hypotheses over and over(such tests never stop)and then produce theories that describe that behavior.

"4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?"

It isn't. In fact the disorder(entropy)grows every second. The energy that expanded from the Big Bang was as ordered as this Universe will ever be, it's been all downhill since that moment. That does not preclude pockets of order here and there(Earth and life on it), but the order the sun loses is billions of times the order the Earth gains.

"5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?"

Well, how about the pure energy that expanded out of the Big Bang?

"6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?"

When-the oldest lifeforms known to have existed(IE that we have evidence of)existed about 3.7 billion years age.

Where-probably around Black Smokers in the early oceans. We're still looking.

Why-there does not appear to be any why, it just is.

How-chemical evolution of complex organic moleculesdriven by heat, chemicals and time)until one was able to synthesize a copy of itself or a mirror image that creates, in turn, the original molecule.

"7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? "

Stupid question, reproduction IS life, no life can possibly exist without reproduction. It is the very definition of what life does.

"8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? "

Another of it's own kind. Prior to the development of sex all life was a clone of it's parent cell(with gene transfer, mutation and other modifications).

"9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?) "

Idiotic question, life reproduces. Even we are only a more sophisticated biological machine to reproduce our set of genes. Those organisms that did not have a drive to reproduce are long dead, all the ones left have as their primary function the reproduction of their own genes.

"10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)"

Recombining letters of English can't produce a Chinese book, but it sure can produce an English one. Like reproduces like. Mutations happen, whether by radiation, bad copying, insertion of foreign DNA, chemical exposure, etc. Those mutations which are detrimental affect a host's ability to reproduce and tend to be eliminated from the gene pool(because those carrying them tend to die before reproducing), those which are neutral may or may not continue(blue eyes, for example), those that give better success in reproduction are kept and spread throughout the population(these are the new, changed(not necessarily improved) varieties).

As a teacher I know that(despite the propaganda)some students can not learn. There are many reasons for this(stupidity, ADD, retardation(or whatever the current PC term for that is), etc.) But the worst reason is willful stupidity and ignorance. Gilly is a perfect example.

Grumpy

Henk V

Thursday 9th September 2010 | 03:08 AM

Grumpy, the fact that Hovind is behind concrete and bars working on a massive fistula for his 65th birthday makes perfect sense. He forgot that the IRS doesnt take rhetoric for evidence either.


If you listen to Hovind you can quickly come to the conclusion that the guy is about as educated as they get in the la Brea.

You'll need to wait for an answer from Goldilocks as he has just left mumble school and is waiting for a neighbour with a labrador and a cane to make sense of your post to him.

As for scratching his arse in public, he is evolving. The labrador is bemused.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 9th September 2010 | 09:04 AM

...in response to this comment by Grumpy. Hi Grumpy,

Dawkins didn't suggest that life was seeded by intelligent aliens, but 'alien' life (in the form of bacteria/simple life forms) inside comets/asteroids which hit the earth.

Henk V

Thursday 9th September 2010 | 11:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Grumpy. I missed that in the text of Grumpy's letter.

To Correct both, Dawkins doesnt maintain either, he just says its entirely possible that panspermia is a mechanism where by life gets around. He also says it doesnt answer the original question of how life got kick started.


No matter how many very promising chemistry experiments occur, we cant assume that (even if one is astoundingly successful) that the operating conditions of the experiment represent the earth at a stage of life generation. All that we could say is life can be generated.

As sure as we are of virii coming after bugs and Ventner is a damn cheeky shit for out godding god, we know that science will never be satisfied on most issues.

Satisfaction is the realm of the religious folk. Isn't it fun navel gazing when Adam and Eve, a la slaves to the gods werent never meant to reproduce.

Woman, I curse you and the snake
what?
you will bear children
what?
and suffer in this task
scuse me, they are 5-99 a kg back in Babel...
what a cunt of a decision that was adam
huh?
adaM?
huh?
Ive got a snake
God has a little bean filled bag

Grumpy

Thursday 9th September 2010 | 06:28 PM

Jake Farr-Wharton

Dawkins was talking about advanced aliens seeding Earth as being a possibility. It is also possible that, because of the chemistry going on in gas/dust clouds, that life is not only possible but likely wherever conditions allow it's development. The Carbon atom is an amazingly versitile thing, but even it is not the only possible basis for life chemistries.

Henk V

"If you listen to Hovind you can quickly come to the conclusion that the guy is about as educated as they get in the la Brea."

I have witnessed more intelligence in the big rock next to my house. Hovind evidently had his lobotomy many years ago. I hope he is making lots of friends in prison.

I stumbled onto this forum while researching a bitch slap to another particularly stupid Creationist on a Christian forum. Ever hear of dad1. Look in the dictionary under imbicile, his picture is there.

Grumpy

g

Friday 10th September 2010 | 01:06 PM

...in response to this comment by Grumpy. evidence?

Chortle chortle

Henk V

Friday 10th September 2010 | 08:20 PM

Evidence for what? That there is an outside to the forest?

What evidence are you asking for, the ridiculous assertion that Kent Hovind is in gaol for stupidity and lies?

Maybe he is out, but after the number of humbling experiences he, Craig and Ham go through on a daily basis, asking for evidence is a bit trite.

How does that chortle go?


lts face it, religion is homeopathic as far as worth goes but its a damn sight more interesting to see in the light of history and current events. You seem to have forgotten that you are essentially a muslim a jew and a catholic.

Deny that and you deny El-Iahweh, jesus

Hope you like your new "mosque" toots..


as I said before, you may not talk to drunks (and I dont know where you got that from, but I'll take it gladly), but I'll always talk to a jerk..

makes me feel superior..

what do you do pageboy?


Grumpy,

Hovind always cuts and runs when talking to a scientist he hasnt practiced against. You'll notice that Ham fellow doesnt debate but chants instead to church crowds.


I will also point out that no anti evolutionist has ever debated on evidence. Rather they debate on comparison to deity or unlikelihood. Its the same as the anti-nuclear debate.


never let facts get in the way of sophistry.

Its sad that as you move in the very tiny lime community you'll find that fact mostly has very little to do with things. At least its balanced, the moron to thinker ratio here is about 60-40 where as in the real world, bone fucking lazy to thinker is about 99-1.

This makes this a very enlightened site.

Yep, I didnt bother with learning the big words when the morons need lecturing not the enlightened.

Ever do a sophistry...ooops religious philosophy degree? some here have, but apparently have now denied their posts and comments.. you would have loved it.

Henk V

Friday 10th September 2010 | 09:18 PM

You know what buggers me... In a world full of religious environmentalism, why don't you guys question them?


It would make this site a lot easier..

Face the fact... chemical engineering problems (and they aint big_) are
1) total sewage reclamation to lipids, phosphates, carbonates, fodder and fuels... did I forget a free whopping 10% to your grid in big cities?
2) Biological fuel and power cells.
Biological solar cells as paint for metallised surface.
3) Nuclear fuel reclamation

and what of physics and engineering?
a) half price nuclear power
b) fission fusion (its here now if you bothered to look)
c) thorium based fuel cycles (and that's 60 years old)

what of what Biology can now do..

i) in field genetic modification
ii) rural waste water clearance to fuel crop ( but USA forget corn!)


The above are but few environmental templates never mentioned by your green politicians, your left politicians or your conservative politicians...


Think about it, just one of these measures will possibly bring USA and OZ below Copenhagen so they can catch up with India and China..


why even bother with religion. It really doesn't matter as much as your kids and great grand kids.. they will have forgotten what atheist means.

They just might have stopped believing in God or Green piece
and crochet knitting post menstrual doddering twits lost from a monty python skit..


Authors, do your friggen home work and don't rely on old bastards and economic conservatives like friendo and I to lead the way!

"Whale? sorry, just had some for lunch with a blue fin sashimi"
If you ever hear that, you know we are on the way to environmental bliss


Just remember, unless a cellulositic conversion process requires massive solar input, why not just burn it... Think about it when your financial advisor has an erection as he squawks establishment tax exemptions... and I know some of you will see this erection.. I have, but I am the human ice water bucket.

Religion? who really gives a fuck?

Henk V

Friday 10th September 2010 | 09:18 PM

You know what buggers me... In a world full of religious environmentalism, why don't you guys question them?


It would make this site a lot easier..

Face the fact... chemical engineering problems (and they aint big_) are
1) total sewage reclamation to lipids, phosphates, carbonates, fodder and fuels... did I forget a free whopping 10% to your grid in big cities?
2) Biological fuel and power cells.
Biological solar cells as paint for metallised surface.
3) Nuclear fuel reclamation

and what of physics and engineering?
a) half price nuclear power
b) fission fusion (its here now if you bothered to look)
c) thorium based fuel cycles (and that's 60 years old)

what of what Biology can now do..

i) in field genetic modification
ii) rural waste water clearance to fuel crop ( but USA forget corn!)


The above are but few environmental templates never mentioned by your green politicians, your left politicians or your conservative politicians...


Think about it, just one of these measures will possibly bring USA and OZ below Copenhagen so they can catch up with India and China..


why even bother with religion. It really doesn't matter as much as your kids and great grand kids.. they will have forgotten what atheist means.

They just might have stopped believing in God or Green piece
and crochet knitting post menstrual doddering twits lost from a monty python skit..


Authors, do your friggen home work and don't rely on old bastards and economic conservatives like friendo and I to lead the way!

"Whale? sorry, just had some for lunch with a blue fin sashimi"
If you ever hear that, you know we are on the way to environmental bliss


Just remember, unless a cellulositic conversion process requires massive solar input, why not just burn it... Think about it when your financial advisor has an erection as he squawks establishment tax exemptions... and I know some of you will see this erection.. I have, but I am the human ice water bucket.

Religion? who really gives a fuck?

Grumpy

Friday 10th September 2010 | 10:26 PM

g

evidence?

Chortle chortle

Their own words. Banana Man and Dr. Dino are the fantastic duo of stupidity(except for those who believe their idiocy, of course).

Yuk Yuk Yuk

G

Saturday 11th September 2010 | 06:36 AM

...in response to this comment by Henk V. First you attack Kent Hovind and thats fair I suppose then attack me and thats fine as well.
I mean who are you but an opinion, though all said and done not a drop of evidence can be filtered from all this garble.
How Homer like (Calling each other names does seem a little churlish?)
Oh and grumpy and I do imagine the disney link here. All those jars of peanut paste and no spontaneous life. Your faith in science is a credible as your faith in star wars light sabres
Grow up. Get it? Disney grumpy dwarf grow up Doesnt matter, probably over your head
Chortle chortle

Grumpy

Saturday 11th September 2010 | 09:02 AM

G

" All those jars of peanut paste and no spontaneous life."

I rest my case. A mind is a terrible thing to not have, G. Though I'm quite sure you are proud that your head maintains a perfect vacuum.

Grumpy

Eben

Monday 13th December 2010 | 04:14 AM

Where does the big bang come from?

Henk V

Monday 13th December 2010 | 06:45 AM

It doesn't eben but if the guys have their models right, the universal initiating happened because it had to. Not a philosophical whack job answer such as, the cosmic cup cake did it.

You see, you can wax as lyrically as you like about the cupcake (Lane does it all the time) and it has nothing to do with ANY religion. Its just neoinvent since the 1920's.


But proposing models and drilling down to test them is a different matter. Haven't you noticed that there are now many Nobel prizes for folk who propose quantum mechanical processes that indicate the "has to happen" model. These were verified. ie.. they work and can be measured.

Ju Ju never understood this and has run off with Voldemort.

Hey Dumbo

Monday 13th December 2010 | 01:48 PM

...in response to this comment by Henk V. "It doesn't eben but if the guys have their models right, the universal initiating happened because it had to. Not a philosophical whack job answer such as, the cosmic cup cake did it."

And you accept that with no evidence Dumbo "if the guys have their models right"
Thats called faith Dumbo
Your cosmic cup cake and you eat it as well Dumbo
"IT HAD TOO" *Chortle Chortle*

I remember you asking me what Jewish tribe I came from and you are inane enough to ask me more silly questions based on your own Dumbo phillosophies

You are a cup cake

Henk V

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 06:49 AM

Um, there is evidence... its called the weight of nothing. Why do you call yourself dumbo?

Secondly, universal steaming is also getting a fair bit of impetus now. You just can't beat good old observation.

This is now getting to what insignificant fraction of the universal initiating events? I am sorry

Hey Dumbo, you are once again very confused. You don't understand method and you sure do not understand your own religion that was fabricated in the period 5-4th century BCE. If you were a christian (and I have my severe doubts of that), you wouldn't even be entertaining the Judah position.

Yet you claim over and over again that you don't entertain the Judah position.

You can't keep toeing the line when some one finds something. Saying that that observation is irrelevant even when it has immediate application is just pretty head in sand stuff.

Whilst yer down there buddy, who is at your other end?

PS Questionnaire, what sort of Xtian are you?

Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
Why is jesus called messiah?
What ark animal did Ham eat?
What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
Do quantum mechanics get over time?

Henk V

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 11:15 AM

Buy the way Hey dumbo, that one is two months or more in counting... Which son/grand son of Noah are you related to? (geez I have to put it simply just so the donut boy can understand)

Hey Dumbo

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 01:37 PM

Hey Dumbo is a direct call to you Dumbo. It is me calling you directly
I could say "hey Hank" but "hey dumbo" seems far more fitting
If I make a random comment I like to use G but for you Dumbo I will address you by the name that best suits you.....Dumbo
Which Grandson of Noah am I related to? Nuh hu Dumbo that wasnt your question
YOU directly asked me what TRIBE I came from (hence why I call you Dumbo)
See Dumbo I dont come from the Jewish line, sadly true, I am but a gentile

Now Dumbo here is a chance for you to make all this bickering a little more civil
Answer your own questions for me
I dont have the answers as I have stated countless times
So you go ahead and answer them and it would be helpful if you can explain where your answers come from
If your logic is sound then I may have to concede, I may though not likely *chortle*chortle*
You talk with no knowledge and IO am happy to point it out to everyone

What tribe am I from, what a Dumbo

Yours is a religion of faith in scientists with no veritable data....none
and like a good devotee of the celebrity of science you wont even question it
Those who dont question science will worship it

Henk V

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 06:32 PM

I named the tribes, shem, ham and Japeth...and of course canaan, . Secondly, hey dumbo, you should now that only one tribe was "jewish"



So

answer the questions hey dumbo...

Henk V

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 06:36 PM

9 question that dumbo can never answer...


Which tribe are you Dumbo? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
Why is jesus called messiah?
What ark animal did Ham eat?
What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
Do quantum mechanics get over time?

Henk V

Tuesday 14th December 2010 | 06:46 PM

10 questions, two of which Hovind may be able to answer since he has had time to think about it...


Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
Why is jesus called messiah?
What ark animal did Ham eat?
What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
Do quantum mechanics get over time?

Multiple choice..

Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones

Hey Dumbo

Wednesday 15th December 2010 | 02:13 PM

Yes I am addressing you again Dumbo
You have changed your question yet again Dumbo, chameleon questions are they. Keep rephrasing them till you make sense.
Well Dumbo I want to hear some answers. Its clear you cant even answer your own silly questions so why would I answer your silly questions

Dumbo above are 10 questions that have not and can not be answered and they have been around slightly longer than your two months worth of silly inane rantings you have conjured

Your turn

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

Jake made a clown of himself and you are the court Jester, better get your crown back

Henk V

Wednesday 15th December 2010 | 09:04 PM

question 1 was the original question and is valid

I'll answer your questions when I get the right answers out of you for the below


Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
Why is jesus called messiah?
What ark animal did Ham eat?
What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
Do quantum mechanics get over time?

Multiple choice..

Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones

Hey Dumbo

Thursday 16th December 2010 | 06:18 AM

You are a coward Dumbo

I said very early on Dumbo in answer to your silly question that I dont know my heritage
I dont care either. I have no interest tracing my family back and would be suprised if it was even possible

Now you spineless little person answer my ten questions
or
Should we just propose here and now that like Jake you are a man of faith in your chosen religion
Duck dodge and weave but its evident to all that read these comments that you have had to make up silly questions and harp on them to conceal your own inability's your own faith


Stand up Dumbo and make a commitment, dont be a coward

Henk V

Thursday 16th December 2010 | 12:50 PM

No, you have always asked questions that I have answered (just like JU Ju) and Ive started wondering, what do you know about your own personal self.


Youve never answered questions without raising some ridiculous comparison blurring what you dont know. You know there is nothing needed to answer most of those questions other than opening one book. And its your book! You are the cut and paste king when it comes to arguing. Start doing it now.


All I want to know is your understanding of the bible and current (painfully obvious) technologies and histories.

You realise what I used to do for a living, I know nothing about you. Call it a survey on my behalf.

Hey Dumbo

Friday 17th December 2010 | 11:15 AM

I havnt a clue what you did/do for a living Dumbo. Circus would be my guess?

The ten questions still stand religious boy, faith in them scientists is your belief

and just so you cant sook and whine anymore
I dont have your answers and I dont wish to find them. According to you I must have come from one of the twelve tribes of Israel....How ignorant is that?
I wont answer your stupid questions and I dont believe even you can, if you have answers for them then they are made up by your other circus performer mates who you so clearly place your faith in

Hey Dumbo

Friday 17th December 2010 | 11:32 AM

Take a leaf out of Jakes book and see how stupid your answewrs are in the warm light of day and do as I say... Shut up
Its better to say nothing and have people think you are stupid than open your mouth and confirm it
You are not helping yourself
In fact you never have helped yourself, you dont answer questions. You are so cowardly you sit on a fence and take pot shots at everyone.
I have never seen you answer a question of importance directly, never seen you commit to anything
You have placed yourself at the top of the pile and demand respect without ever earning it, you are an insecure little wishy washy coward
You live in your own little ball of terror. Fear of the fact people will see you for what you are, know what that is.
Its the fact that you are not much at all. An insignificant nobody

Henk V

Friday 17th December 2010 | 04:09 PM

The ever increasing survey... till Hey Dumbo can answer a question..
question ii was the original question and is valid

I'll answer your questions when I get the right answers out of you for the below

The OT
i. What plants and animals were in the garden of eden?
ii. Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
iii. What ark animal did Ham eat?
iv. Who wrote the torah as you know it?
v. Who brought the Torah to Jerusalem?
vi. Who made a deal to combine two gods the god of the old testament?
vii. The sodomites had an establishing, cordial and continuous relationship with which biblical hero?
viii. How did Joshua, David, Solomon, Samuel and Eli constantly defy gods law in the torah?
ix. Who pointed it out?
x. So how did jesus get to ignore it?

The NT
i. Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
ii. Why is jesus called messiah?
iii. Why is there a case for the canonical gospels to be placed in the OT of the Christian Bible?
iv. What is the new testament position on slavery.
v. jesus died on the cross who rose from the dead?
a) All the saints.
b) Maybe jesus
c) jesus was reputed to have risen
d) Nobody was told by witnesses.
e) Just a heck of a lot of people.
f) Only the one
g) None of the above
h) All of the above
vi. If the writer of the torah is right, which NT hero will never see the lord?
vii. Why?
The spinners
i. Who is satan? Justify your answer.
ii. Who is lucifer?
iii. Who is the Beast
iv. Who is halal?
v. Why is chamosh tougher than Yahweh?
vi. Which god is the god of the bible?
vii. What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
viii. Who was involved in the immaculate conception?
ix. Now to the clincher.. If Christianity is right and Judaism is wrong (as you keep on insisting) which book of the new testament do you have to exclude/ignore at all costs?
allieds
i. How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
ii. Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
iii. Do quantum mechanics get over time?
iv. Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones

HenryO

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 12:15 AM

I am shocked that science basically has no clue or answers for something they force children to learn in textbooks. And how violently they try to defend it against other theories and opinions. It's pretty shameful. No evidence, but F***k everything else include the possibility for creationism. Childish and unprofessional in my eyes.

Sadly, you eggheads don't have a clue what you're talking about and can't seem to admit it.

Henk V

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 06:13 AM

Thats why we have science and mythology, you can donate all your science stuff and live on a field in the hope of gathering grass roots or, you can join in.

living the myth is a tad uncomfortable considering its a babylonian one.. but hey, its your dream, make your kids stupid so kids from other countries can come over for the good jobs.

Its your dream isn't it?

Hey Dumbo

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 08:13 AM

Again Dumbo you have become confused again
You dont have science you clown.....we study science.... you clown

“We could solve much of the wrongness problem ... if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that.”
—David H. Freeman, in The Atlantic, November 2010

Dumbo you are a self effacing arrogant fool

Henk V

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 10:32 AM

who is we?

“We could solve much of the wrongness problem ... if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that.”
—David H. Freeman, in The Atlantic, November 2010

thats the credo of science, thanx for posting it for me Hey Dumbo. Its also the reason why I spend my days criticising journal articles. If Darwin hadn't bothered to point out where his posits had flaws, nobody would have bothered reading it. Of course, Darwin was confirmed within a year of going to press. How is Kent going with dolly the prison dude?

Now, admit you can't answer a single question about the bible and I'll take to your above with relish.

PS, its very sad that you cant even google the answers or hit bible on line like when you and Gina do when you are disguising the fact that you know none of the surrounding context.

Its ok, you have to be trained from child hood on to swallow that stuff.

PS I like your writing style!

Henk V

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 10:54 AM

I am still confused about the statement you made Hey Dumbo (nice name by the way whats next? "Hey Earwax"?)

"Again Dumbo you have become confused again
You dont have science you clown.....we study science.... you clown"

Please state what you meant. The utter confusion between possessives and pronouns is staggering. There are four outcomes in that statement. No wonder you call your self Hey Dumbo. Could you settle for calling yourself "Hey Hey, Its Saturday" on Wednesday nights?

Apparently it works on commercial TV. You'd have precedent.


The ever increasing survey... till Hey Dumbo can answer a question..
question ii was the original question and is valid
The overriding question is If you are a Christian as you claim, and you don’t care what is written in the OT as that would make you a “Jew” as you claim, why the hell are you a creationist?


I'll answer your questions when I get the right answers out of you for the below

The OT
i. What plants and animals were in the garden of eden?
ii. Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
iii. What ark animal did Ham eat?
iv. Who wrote the torah as you know it?
v. Who brought the Torah to Jerusalem?
vi. Who made a deal to combine two gods the god of the old testament?
vii. The sodomites had an establishing, cordial and continuous relationship with which biblical hero?
viii. Why doesn’t the term onanism make terribly much sense?
ix. How did Joshua, David, Solomon, Samuel and Eli constantly defy gods law in the torah?
x. Who pointed it out?
xi. So how did jesus get to ignore it?
xii. What’s the good thing about the message of the Job story?

The NT
i. Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
ii. Why is jesus called messiah?
iii. Why is there a case for the canonical gospels to be placed in the OT of the Christian Bible?
iv. What is the new testament position on slavery.
v. Who was the first person to get special dispensation to go to heaven under the new Jesuit religion?
vi. jesus died on the cross, who rose from the dead?
a) All the saints.
b) Maybe jesus
c) jesus was reputed to have risen
d) Nobody was told by witnesses.
e) Just a heck of a lot of people.
f) Only the one
g) None of the above
h) All of the above
vii. If the writer of the torah is right, which NT hero will never see the lord?
viii. Why?
ix. After 20 years joshing with the folk and the guys back at home what did Paul never ever know?
The spinners
i. Who is satan? Justify your answer.
ii. Who is lucifer?
iii. Who is the Beast
iv. Who is halal?
v. Why is chamosh tougher than Yahweh?
vi. Which god is the god of the bible?
vii. What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
viii. Who was involved in the immaculate conception?
ix. Now to the clincher.. If Christianity is right and Judaism is wrong (as you keep on insisting) which book of the new testament do you have to exclude/ignore at all costs?
allieds
i. How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
ii. Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
iii. Do quantum mechanics get over time?
iv. Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones
Science under, “mate anything will fucking do..just tell us you base scientific method...if any at all;
1. List the number of successful posits Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the posits have produced a reliable model.
2. List the number of successful models Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable observation.
3. List the number of successful observations Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable prediction.
4. List the number of successful predictions Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the predictions have come to pass.
5. List any application Creation “science” has produced (look i’ll settle for stir fried beans, just list it and justify it). Don’t use a pc to list these as you know, if creation sciences tenets hold true, your pc wont work. It also means you’ve lost the “phone a friend” option.
6. What has creation science done in science?

Hey Dumbo

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 12:50 PM

You may be confused but every one else seems to leave this alone
Why is that you think

Henk V

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 05:16 PM

I dont really care, you asked so many questions and got so many answers... cough up baby, show us you can do just one thing...

Its fantastic that you cant even evade like Ju Ju...

The ever increasing survey... till Hey Dumbo can answer a question..
question ii was the original question and is valid
The overriding question is If you are a Christian as you claim, and you don’t care what is written in the OT as that would make you a “Jew” as you claim, why the hell are you a creationist?


I'll answer your questions when I get the right answers out of you for the below

The OT
i. What plants and animals were in the garden of eden?
ii. Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
iii. What ark animal did Ham eat?
iv. Who wrote the torah as you know it?
v. Who brought the Torah to Jerusalem?
vi. Who made a deal to combine two gods the god of the old testament?
vii. The sodomites had an establishing, cordial and continuous relationship with which biblical hero?
viii. Why doesn’t the term onanism make terribly much sense?
ix. How did Joshua, David, Solomon, Samuel and Eli constantly defy gods law in the torah?
x. Who pointed it out?
xi. So how did jesus get to ignore it?
xii. What’s the good thing about the message of the Job story?

The NT
i. Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
ii. Why is jesus called messiah?
iii. Why is there a case for the canonical gospels to be placed in the OT of the Christian Bible?
iv. What is the new testament position on slavery.
v. Who was the first person to get special dispensation to go to heaven under the new Jesuit religion?
vi. jesus died on the cross, who rose from the dead?
a) All the saints.
b) Maybe jesus
c) jesus was reputed to have risen
d) Nobody was told by witnesses.
e) Just a heck of a lot of people.
f) Only the one
g) None of the above
h) All of the above
vii. If the writer of the torah is right, which NT hero will never see the lord?
viii. Why?
ix. After 20 years joshing with the folk and the guys back at home what did Paul never ever know?
The spinners
i. Who is satan? Justify your answer.
ii. Who is lucifer?
iii. Who is the Beast
iv. Who is halal?
v. Why is chamosh tougher than Yahweh?
vi. Which god is the god of the bible?
vii. What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
viii. Who was involved in the immaculate conception?
ix. Now to the clincher.. If Christianity is right and Judaism is wrong (as you keep on insisting) which book of the new testament do you have to exclude/ignore at all costs?
allieds
i. How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
ii. Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
iii. Do quantum mechanics get over time?
iv. Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones
Science under, “mate anything will fucking do..just tell us you base scientific method...if any at all;
1. List the number of successful posits Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the posits have produced a reliable model.
2. List the number of successful models Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable observation.
3. List the number of successful observations Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable prediction.
4. List the number of successful predictions Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the predictions have come to pass.
5. List any application Creation “science” has produced (look i’ll settle for stir fried beans, just list it and justify it). Don’t use a pc to list these as you know, if creation sciences tenets hold true, your pc wont work. It also means you’ve lost the “phone a friend” option.
6. What has creation science done in science?

Hey Dumbo

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 09:44 PM

You are right I am a poor/bad Christian. Dont even know what I believe and dont have the answers
Sounds just like you doesnt it dumbo
Yep we are complete opposites. You believe your religion based on faith and I am to mine based on the same
Dumbo you are still nothing more than a petulant little child
Bless you

Henk V

Saturday 18th December 2010 | 11:34 PM

dammit and I thought you would evade the questions

The ever increasing survey... till Hey Dumbo can answer a question..
question ii was the original question and is valid
The overriding question is If you are a Christian as you claim, and you don’t care what is written in the OT as that would make you a “Jew” as you claim, why the hell are you a creationist?


I'll answer your questions when I get the right answers out of you for the below

The OT
i. What plants and animals were in the garden of eden?
ii. Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting
iii. What ark animal did Ham eat?
iv. Who wrote the torah as you know it?
v. Who brought the Torah to Jerusalem?
vi. Who made a deal to combine two gods the god of the old testament?
vii. The sodomites had an establishing, cordial and continuous relationship with which biblical hero?
viii. Why doesn’t the term onanism make terribly much sense?
ix. How did Joshua, David, Solomon, Samuel and Eli constantly defy gods law in the torah?
x. Who pointed it out?
xi. So how did jesus get to ignore it?
xii. What’s the good thing about the message of the Job story?

The NT
i. Why isnt jesus very good at all? Which biblical character of note emphasises this?
ii. Why is jesus called messiah?
iii. Why is there a case for the canonical gospels to be placed in the OT of the Christian Bible?
iv. What is the new testament position on slavery.
v. Who was the first person to get special dispensation to go to heaven under the new Jesuit religion?
vi. jesus died on the cross, who rose from the dead?
a) All the saints.
b) Maybe jesus
c) jesus was reputed to have risen
d) Nobody was told by witnesses.
e) Just a heck of a lot of people.
f) Only the one
g) None of the above
h) All of the above
vii. If the writer of the torah is right, which NT hero will never see the lord?
viii. Why?
ix. After 20 years joshing with the folk and the guys back at home what did Paul never ever know?
The spinners
i. Who is satan? Justify your answer.
ii. Who is lucifer?
iii. Who is the Beast
iv. Who is halal?
v. Why is chamosh tougher than Yahweh?
vi. Which god is the god of the bible?
vii. What physical proof is there of a biblical jesus?
viii. Who was involved in the immaculate conception?
ix. Now to the clincher.. If Christianity is right and Judaism is wrong (as you keep on insisting) which book of the new testament do you have to exclude/ignore at all costs?
allieds
i. How many buffalo did buffalo bill kill?
ii. Who got the Nobel for the weight of nothing observation?
iii. Do quantum mechanics get over time?
iv. Which one of these wouldn’t work if creationism were true;
A) Photosynthesis
B) Pc’s
C) Cars
D) Mobile phones
Science under, “mate anything will fucking do..just tell us you base scientific method...if any at all;
1. List the number of successful posits Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the posits have produced a reliable model.
2. List the number of successful models Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable observation.
3. List the number of successful observations Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the models have produced a reliable prediction.
4. List the number of successful predictions Creation “science” has made. Start with year and list year the predictions have come to pass.
5. List any application Creation “science” has produced (look i’ll settle for stir fried beans, just list it and justify it). Don’t use a pc to list these as you know, if creation sciences tenets hold true, your pc wont work. It also means you’ve lost the “phone a friend” option.
6. What has creation science done in science?

ninjacrotch

Monday 2nd May 2011 | 08:22 AM

I came across this page while looking at jesus-is-savior.com somehow. Just read the article and all of the comments and must say: chortle chortle is fucking retarded.

Gary

Tuesday 10th May 2011 | 10:32 PM

Ha ha! Those questions are classic. I am going to repost them. Thankyou ninja, that chortling moron gets his ass kicked here!

Gilly

Wednesday 11th May 2011 | 01:22 PM

Big words there Gary boy
Bet you wont answer one of them questions, maybe you will try but like all the other talkers around here you will end up on your face

Well......Step up

What gone already

Gary

Wednesday 11th May 2011 | 02:52 PM

Those questions above? Most of them you understand if you went to church.

I'll pick on a few


i. What plants and animals were in the garden of eden? (Land animals and plants)

ii. Which tribe are you ? Shem, Ham Japheth or Canaan? Two months and counting (I see that one is still open to the chortle chortle guy)


iii. What ark animal did Ham eat? (the ones Noah sacrificed)
iv. Who wrote the torah as you know it? (Ezra)
v. Who brought the Torah to Jerusalem? (Ezra)

Who ever the chortle chortle dumbo guy is. He is probably a know nothing .

Gary

Wednesday 11th May 2011 | 06:25 PM

ROFLMAO!! I like that buffalo Bill one... Buffalo Bill didn't kill a single buffalo... I will post that one for the suckers as well.. What goes on this guys head? a dictionary of sucker punch questions?

My FB is going to be hot for a while!!

Mud

Wednesday 11th May 2011 | 07:15 PM

Gary, don't answer the questions. That person you call Girly is the chortle dumbo. He has never understood one phrase of the bible and still blithers on about non biblical end time rubbish.

I've left these questions as a testament to the fact that he is here to make noise. If you are here because someone mentioned rusty lime on facebook, you will be common to me on that site. Just look for the guy whose nick sounds like hen something. I'll, message you if you reckon you can do the questionnaire.

"Girly" cant even attempt it.

Mud

Wednesday 11th May 2011 | 07:20 PM

ps, "Girly, chortle, chortle dumbo stupid chooh choo woo woo's, you are gonna burn in fucking hell, compassions" cosmological questions are very simple. Simply answered and have been answered before. He just pretends never to see posts when it is inconvenient to his lack of argument.

Damn I like that Girly. Its better than goldilocks!

Gary

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 01:47 AM

Thanks. I hadn't realized Henk V and Hensane were the same. But Muddie! Ive known you as Muddie for 10 years. Thanks for all the help elsewhere. Beer and food rocks.. Thanks for all your articles.


I realize the Girly guy was a dork, I didn't realize dummy and choke choke was the same guy!

No I wont post your answers here...


I'll post all the questions on the kits and see if the guys cant pull the lot in one day. After all, brewers know their shit better than the world ending Catholics.

Thank goodness there doesn't seem to be another creationist or end time catholic here. It would be embarrassing to the hosts.

Gary

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 01:53 AM

Ps saw your son's band last week opening for Perry's new project. They are tight!

Gilly

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 08:06 AM

Ohhh
Now now
If its to hard for you and your unlimited intelligence, just walk away
What, Mum in to the benzine when you were conceived dear Gary. Sniff*sniff*

The 10 questions remain unanswered and like a pack of cowardly K9"s you can only attack the person who posted them, clearly as your impotence to answer them remains on show to all who read this blog

Rant rant rant anything but answer the questions

Mud

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 08:46 AM

well..it took me 5 years to stop him neck staring. I'll pass it on

Mud

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 08:59 AM

BTW, his brewing is coming on. Got some great kegs full in the fridge! He has joined up with the larger association.

Good to have yer kid turn practical after spoon feeding it for over 20 years.





PPS Girly is talking about Ken Ham type questions he posted that you can pull out of any junior physics book.

It was his ploy to avoid answering questions about his biblical knowledge. Given that he is a christian and cant get anything biblical quoted correctly, its no point directing him to a book.

Don't answer him. He'll only stand on his head and tell you you are going to burn in hell because the bible is a book of compassion.

He is consistent. I'll give him that

C

Saturday 1st October 2011 | 03:57 AM

Do you know what the chances are of the Big Bang "big dud" creating the universe are? Let me tell you, like nothing